PSD Enrollment, Comprehensive Planning, and Budget FAQ

Overwhelmingly, the challenge that the district is facing is the sharp and persistent decline in school-aged children living within our district boundaries. This decline is caused by a variety of factors, most prominent among them being decreasing birth rates and high costs of living. The reality is that only 23% of households in Fort Collins have school-aged children, and the number of schools we currently operate have significantly more open seats than can be filled by the local population of children. At present, there are more than 10,000 open seats across the district.

Since Colorado schools are funded on a per pupil basis, funding follows each student wherever they opt to attend public school — whether that’s a charter school, neighborhood school, or choice school within the district. It is required by law for the district to offer the option for a child to attend a school other than their neighborhood school. There are many reasons that a family may opt to send their student to a school other than their neighborhood school; these decisions can be informed by political ideology, religious beliefs, access to certain programs, convenience to work or childcare, among many others. PSD also wants to ensure that each child and family in our area finds their best educational fit, whether that is their neighborhood school or a school of choice. 

It is important to note that the number of families opting students into homeschooling, charter schools, or private schools in our area is an exponentially smaller factor contributing to PSD’s declining enrollment than is the decline in the number of school-aged children in our area overall. If every child in our region attended their neighborhood school and no children attended charter schools, private schools, homeschool, etc., the district would still be facing the same enrollment challenges and would therefore still have to consider consolidation.

For details on administrative staffing costs, see the question below titled “What is PSD’s administration and central office doing to decrease their costs?”

Find more details and FAQs about PSD enrollment data here.

While our area is still seeing incoming migration as people move to the area from elsewhere, much of the region’s growth is being driven by migration to the area by older adults or households without children. Overall population growth does not always mean growth in the number of school-aged children.

Moving sixth grade back to elementary school and ninth grade back to middle school would not change the number of school-aged children in our district. Similarly, changing boundaries would move children to new schools, but would not increase overall enrollment. There are simply not enough school-aged children in our area to fill the number of seats we have available district-wide. The challenge facing the District is an issue of overall student numbers, not student distribution alone. 

While moving sixth and ninth grades down may create a better distribution temporarily due to higher grades currently having higher numbers of students, that would quickly change as the population decline reaches those upper grades in the next few years. That would mean a lot of money, time, and upheaval being dedicated to a very temporary, incomplete solution.

In addition to not addressing the larger issue of numbers of school-aged children across the district, capping enrollment at public schools is illegal.

Each of these schools was built in response to demographic trends and significant increases in new housing developments in their respective areas. Those factors indicated that there would be significant growth in these geographic regions of the district. This population growth has occurred in Wellington and Timnath, and both of these schools are operating near their capacities. Bamford Elementary was also built in a region of the district where demographers anticipated significant population growth due to new housing developments. However, the homes in the developments adjacent to the school have been purchased primarily by those without children. This means that there are fewer school-aged children in these neighborhoods than anticipated, which is resulting in lower enrollments at Bamford than demographers predicted prior to the construction of the school. 

The Comprehensive Planning Committee is currently working to identify criteria that will be used to evaluate the possibility of school consolidations. More information on the work of the CPC is available below. 

The Comprehensive Planning Committee (CPC) is tasked with identifying and recommending criteria to be used to evaluate the possibility of consolidating schools. The CPC is made up of stakeholders from across the district, from principals to current parents/guardians to community members to staff and representatives from each employee association. The CPC is charged with making a recommendation to the Board of Education about specific criteria to be used, and the Board of Education will decide whether the recommended criteria will be applied. It is anticipated that the CPC will present criteria to the Board for consideration at the Board meeting on May 12, 2026.

Yes, here are some of those community engagement opportunities: 
 

• School Accountability Committee (SAC) meetings

• Staff Town Hall
• Board of Education Engagement Sessions
• Superintendent Engagement Sessions
• Special Education Advisory Committee Meetings 
• District Advisory Board Meetings 
• District Accountability Committee Meetings 
• Early Childhood Policy Council Meetings
• Meetings of Title 1 school families

More opportunities will be added as they receive Board approval.

PSD is very grateful for the support that our community provides when it authorizes mill levies and bonds. These investments make a significant difference in the day-to-day lives of our students. Funding from mill levies and bonds are specifically allocated for clearly defined purposes based on the ballot language. These funds cannot be used for any purpose outside of that stated in the ballot language. 

Tax dollars: Funding is limited to the usage specified in its respective ballot measure. For example, the funds allocated by Propositions LL and MM, which were state-level ballot measures to continue the Free School Meals program, can’t be redirected to fund curriculum, athletics, or any other costs necessary to operate and staff our schools. This is true of the district’s most recent ballot measure — the 2024 Debt-Free Mill Levy Override — and the mill levies and bonds that the voters in our district have approved over time. 

Mill Levy: The passage of the 2024 Ballot Issue 4A (the Debt-Free Mill Levy Override) specifically provides funding for building maintenance and capital improvements. Projects paid for by the Debt Free Mill Levy include a wide array of deferred maintenance projects such as HVAC replacements and repairs, electrical, and plumbing work, among many other critical facilities projects. These investments extend the life of our aging school buildings and improve the educational experience for our students. When the 2024 Debt-Free Mill Levy Override passed, the district was able to redirect funding within the General Fund to support increases in staff salaries, investments in high-quality curricular materials, replacement cycles for things like instruments and athletic equipment, and provide additional funding to the district’s smallest schools, ensuring they have the minimum amount of funding needed to operate. The district also passed a mill levy in 2019. The 2019 Ballot Issue 4A provides roughly $18 million annually, which was used to raise teacher and staff salaries and add additional mental health personnel to our schools. Find detailed updates on how these funds have been put to use so far here. 

Cannabis sales taxes: It’s a common misconception that all (or even most) cannabis sales tax goes directly into local classrooms. In reality, the way this revenue is distributed in Colorado — and specifically how it impacts PSD — is quite nuanced. Some cannabis sales tax goes to the BEST (Building Excellent Schools Today) grant program to fund capital construction and improvements in school buildings. This program is primarily designed to support small and rural school districts, and that means PSD receives little to nothing from it. Additional cannabis tax revenue goes to local government or state programming as well as the State Public School Fund (to be split between all 178 Colorado districts based on enrollment), but this money is often used by the state to offset what it already owes the districts, rather than acting as a bonus on top of existing budgets.

In short: cannabis sales tax revenue is put to use across the state, but since it has to be distributed widely to fund a large variety of public needs, it has very little impact on PSD.

When the Board of Education paused the school consolidation process that was underway in 2024, they indicated that their intent was not to revisit the conversation before 2027. However, as enrollment has continued to decline at a faster rate and more of our schools are getting smaller each year due to these declines in enrollment, the $4 million in funding set aside from the Debt-Free Mill Levy Override annually to support small schools has already been expended. Additionally, when the Board of Education paused the closure conversation in 2024, they charged the district with convening a Comprehensive Planning Committee to continue work to study enrollment trends and make recommendations specific to possible criteria for consolidation conversations in the future. While it was originally anticipated that the committee would bring forward recommendations in 2027, based on the data available and the continual decline in enrollment, the committee has engaged with the Board about accelerating this process. At present, it is anticipated that criteria that could be used to consider school consolidations will be brought to the Board in May 2026. If that criteria were to be adopted and applied, a recommendation specific to consolidation of schools would be presented to the Board some time in the fall of 2026. If the Board were to take action on any recommendations, they would go into effect for the 2027-2028 school year. 

Like many school districts across Colorado and the country, PSD is facing several financial pressures at the same time. Based on what we know today, we’re projecting a funding reduction of between $8 million and $17 million for the 2026–27 school year. This range reflects uncertainty that will remain until the state budget is finalized later this spring.

This projected shortfall is the result of multiple converging factors, including:

• Declining enrollment, largely due to long-term birth rate declines and the high cost of living in our region.
• State budget shortfalls, with Colorado facing an estimated $1.2 billion deficit that will likely impact K-12 education.
• Federal funding reductions and instability, including the loss of major mental health grants.
• Rising costs, such as healthcare, utilities, and other essential services.

In addition, in order to balance its budget, the state may consider other reductions to K-12 funding including:

• Reducing or eliminating enrollment averaging, which will mean an approximately $6.4–$7 million reduction in funding for PSD.
• Changes to the Specific Ownership Tax (SOT) calculation, which could reduce PSD’s funding by an additional $6–$9 million.

While per-pupil funding in PSD is expected to increase due to inflationary adjustments required by the Colorado Constitution, that increase is effectively cancelled out by the loss of per-pupil funding that will result from the decline in enrollment. Last year saw an enrollment decline of over 500 students. As of January 30, we are projecting a decline of approximately 654 funded students for next school year, which will equate to roughly $7 million in lost revenue.

It is important to keep in mind that the Legislative Session is not yet complete, and all of these factors may change. PSD hopes for and has plans in place in the event of a less dire set of outcomes, but has to be prepared for the worst.

For a greater level of detail, see budget presentation from Feb 10, 2026 here.

Budgets for schools are primarily allocated using a student-based budgeting process (SBB). SBB identifies a specific dollar amount to be allocated to each school based on a combination of factors including the size of the school, the number of at-risk students and gifted and talented students in the school population, and at the secondary level, the number of students who need additional levels of academic support. To this baseline, federal funds such as Title I funding is added as supplements for those schools that qualify. Schools also receive allocations from mill levies and bonds that have been passed by local voters. Budgets for departments are determined based on the needs and function of each department and the services it provides to students and schools. More information about PSD’s budgets can be found on the fiscal transparency pages of the district website.

Public schools in the state of Colorado are provided a per-pupil allocation of funding annually from the state. The School Finance Act, which is created by the Legislature each year, determines the amount of state funding to be allocated to districts. In addition, districts receive funding from mill levies and bonds passed by local tax payers as well as federal funding for some specific programs (i.e. Title I) and grant funding, when available.

At the district’s smallest schools, approximately $18,946 dollars will be allocated per student for the 2026-27 school year. At our largest schools, approximately $6,542 will be allocated per pupil next year. This happens because a certain baseline cost is required to operate a school — its library, its cafeteria, its grounds, its core classes, its administration, etc. — and when those baseline costs are spread over a smaller number of students, it means that a much greater amount of money has to be allocated per pupil for that school to stay operating. When the school your child attends so dramatically impacts how much funding is allocated to their education, it becomes a crisis of equity.

The district believes in ensuring that all of our students in all schools have access to robust programming and learning opportunities. As we continue long-range planning for the district, making sure that all students have this access will remain a priority and we will continue our work to define how best to quantify, subjectively evaluate, and act upon equity as a criterion. 

To offer all students the robust educational experience that PSD believes they deserve, ideally, elementary schools would have at least 400 students and middle schools at least 700 students. At the high school level, the number depends on the school.

PSD’s central office, along with the rest of the district, is reducing its staffing and operating budgets. Some central office departments have already reorganized over the last two years, resulting in significant cost reductions. This includes the elimination of three Cabinet positions. Central Office departments are further reducing their budgets again this spring. An additional $1.2 million in reductions from the Academic Cabinet have already been identified and further reductions, including reductions to the size of the superintendent’s Cabinet, are being identified in all other Central Office departments. These reductions will mean that fewer services will be provided to students. 

In order to reduce costs at the administrative level, roles and departments get redesigned. This looks like redistributing responsibilities, reclassifying or combining job roles, etc. When this happens, the District is legally required to post the new job. This results in jobs being posted, including job titles that haven’t existed in the District before. These changes are specifically designed to result in administrative cost savings. For example, as the Chief Institutional Effectiveness Officer retires this year, that Cabinet position will be eliminated and the departments that it oversaw are being restructured, combined, and renamed for clarity. 

For the same number of students, it costs much more to run two libraries, two main offices, two cafeterias, etc. as opposed to one of each. Since 85% of PSD’s budget is staffing, much of the cost reduction would come from reducing costs for administration, maintenance, custodial, support staff, nutrition services, transportation services, etc. as two schools become one. 

Since smaller schools receive disproportionately higher per-pupil costs to meet minimum staffing requirements (including positions like the principal, nurses, counselors, librarians, custodians, office staff, core teachers, among others regardless of enrollment), consolidating captures more funding efficiency by spreading those costs over more students. PSD already shares staffing between schools as much as possible, but there’s a limit to how much this can be done while meeting educational requirements and ensuring educational efficacy. 

It is possible that there would be new costs that occur as a result of school consolidation. Those transition costs could include things like completing any necessary updates to buildings to be able to meet the needs of the new student population or providing transportation for students who don’t live within the “walk zone” radius of their new school, among others.

This would depend on how the consolidated building would be utilized, and these numbers will be calculated and presented when/if the District gets a sense of which schools would be considered for consolidation, and as future uses are identified.

PSD is in the process of exploring how its buildings might be used in the future. Some ideas that have been considered include expanding Early Childhood offerings, partnering with local non-profits and government entities to offer services to the community, among others. Whether such partnerships or alternate uses of facilities could result in revenue streams for the district remains to be seen.

Once projected enrollment at consolidated schools is identified, the principal will build a staffing plan and the school will be staffed in accordance with the guidelines outlined in PSD’s Employee Agreement.

As schools get smaller, class sizes typically get larger. While this might seem counterintuitive, this happens because staffing resources become more stretched as schools get smaller. For example, as enrollment declines and school budgets decline, it is not possible to hire as many teachers to serve students. The result is larger class sizes of students. 

As enrollment declines in schools, school budgets also contract, which means that staffing resources are typically reduced. Often, the courses that are most impacted are elective classes and specials classes like art, music, and physical education. Each principal is responsible for determining the school’s staffing plan and what courses can be offered each year. If schools are consolidated and their enrollments increase, efficiencies in staffing and operating budgets are created, which means that schools can offer more robust course offerings including electives as well as specials.

Reports by FLO analytics established a minimum 700 square foot space as a "teaching space".  At the elementary level, a 25-student class size is applied to this, and 30 students at the secondary level is applied to this to calculate utilization. There are a wide range of room sizes, and the 700 is on the lower end but still feasible and standard for building construction. The number of rooms at 700 square feet or larger is the room index capacity, and then we apply a multiplier of 80% to get to a national standard capacity. We are in the process of getting principal feedback on further "functional capacity".

See answer above. That calculation has had reliable accuracy, but we are seeking to build even greater accuracy by analyzing functional capacity.

PSD is currently evaluating the one-to-one laptop program at the elementary school level and is exploring whether a different model could be implemented to provide students with access to technology. It is important to note, however, that the funding for the district’s one-to-one program largely comes from a ballot measure that passed in 2010 and this funding is specifically earmarked for this purpose. 

Taxation mechanisms like Tax Increment Financing (TIF) do not impact the district’s ability to fund our existing schools.The TIF mechanism is used by local governments to promote economic development and redevelopment. TIF essentially collects funding from taxes and allocates it to urban renewal authorities. There is one in Timnath, but this does not mean that the district doesn’t receive the appropriate amount of property taxes collected from Timnath taxpayers.

Taxation mechanisms like Tax Increment Financing (TIF) do not impact the district’s ability to fund our existing schools.The TIF mechanism is used by local governments to promote economic development and redevelopment. TIF essentially collects funding from taxes and allocates it to urban renewal authorities. There is one in Timnath, but this does not mean that the district doesn’t receive the appropriate amount of property taxes collected from Timnath taxpayers.

Yes. Districts across the state and country are facing the same challenges because many areas are facing similar demographic trends resulting from low birth rates and high costs of living. Locally, for example, Jefferson County School District has closed more than twenty schools in the last couple of years. Denver Public Schools, Douglas County School District, Boulder Valley School District, and Thompson School District have either in the process of exploring school consolidation or have already closed or consolidated schools. Across the country, districts like Broward County in Florida, Atlanta Public Schools in Georgia, and Austin Independent School District and Corpus Christi Independent School District in Texas are all currently planning to close schools in response to what they are referring to as the “enrollment cliff.”

If schools are consolidated, students will have the opportunity to access more robust programming and learning opportunities. Instead of stretching our resources thin across our current schools, by combining some schools, we will be able to offer more to our students. This will also result in a more equitable distribution of per-pupil funding across the district. 

Given that no one currently knows which schools will be considered for potential consolidation or even what criteria will be used to evaluate for potential consolidation, it would not be equitable to withhold maintenance from schools based on speculation. Additionally, at this time, PSD does not intend to sell its properties, which means they must continue to be maintained over time.

Consolidation is being considered because educational outcomes are not best served by spending taxpayer dollars to operate a number of schools designed to serve a much larger student population than what currently exists in this area and than is anticipated to exist in the future. In order to fund so many schools at half-capacity and below, funding has to be redirected from other areas and can result in the need to make reductions to programming, staffing, and services.